If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

.Net... the saga...

As requested, a status update on my progress:

I've been using .Net now for just over a week, and I have to say that I'm
enjoying most of it.
I still take 30mins sometimes to look up some obscure information, and I
haven't attacked the ADO.Net stuff yet (saving that - erk), but I'm whizzing
along happily on most of the other stuff.
One difficulty I experience is knowing whether or not there is a simpler way
of implementing something.
For example, I have some classes that contain collections of other types of
objects, and I first used an ArrayList. I began to implement an interface to
an XML file usng XMLDocument so that each class could read its own subtree,
and spawn child classes when required.
I then discovered (when reading the Professional VB.Net 2nd Edition - an
_excellent_ book) that the XMLSerializer would do this for me.
I changed all my ArrayLists to Dictionary class (better suited to my
requirements)... then discovered that they can't be XMLSerialized :/

This too and fro process is a bit of a pain, but at least once you have
discovered these issues once, they have similarities throughout the
framework.
Reading (and answering) the questions in these technical forums helps a
great deal. Spending 20mins coding a solution to a question is a brilliant
way to force yourself to learn a new area, and I was chuffed (English word)
today to find that I not only managed to get delegates down to a 'T', but
also came up with a nifty way of dynamically triggering events from
dynamically created timers.

However, my overall appraisal of VB.Net and its complexity remains
unaltered. I still think it is a very tricky thing for conventional VB
developers to come to terms with, and I'm now experiencing that first hand
as one of my friends (who has programmed VB and VBA for about 8 years)
struggles to grasp many of the concepts of the strong object usage in .Net.

I am convinced that the only reason I am able to pick it up quickly is
because of my experience in Java and C++. I now frequently find my mindset s
witching into the OO design mode where I consider subclassing existing
objects to solve a problem, and I'm at the point where the decision to
subclass no longer fills me with dread as it did when I first started
("Damnit, where's that example code with all the syntax I need in the
Moron's Guide to VB.Net?")

As a genuine comment (and this is _not_ flame bait), I would suggest that
while strong VB developers with a little OO experience could probably pick
this up and run with it in relatively short time, it is a thought process
modification (or 'paradigm shift' as they sometimes call it) that will
almost certainly defeat any weak developers, so that rules out about 50%-70%
of the VB6 people out there :/
Just read some of the support questions to get an idea of what I mean. It's
not the questions about specific bugs that are worrying (we all miss the
obvious problems sometimes), it's the descriptions of what people are trying
to do that shows how little people actually _think_ about the problem they
have to solve, and hence the solution they are creating.

Cheers,
Jason S (iGadget)

p.s. Thought I ought to be using my real name so that I don't get accused of
'hiding behind a pseudonym'
p.p.s. Do not confuse me with the other 'Jason'; I am the real one

Re: .Net... the saga...

"Jason Sobell \(iGadget\)" <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>As a genuine comment (and this is _not_ flame bait), I would suggest that
>while strong VB developers with a little OO experience could probably pick
>this up and run with it in relatively short time, it is a thought process
>modification (or 'paradigm shift' as they sometimes call it) that will
>almost certainly defeat any weak developers, so that rules out about 50%-70%
>of the VB6 people out there :/
>Just read some of the support questions to get an idea of what I mean. It's
>not the questions about specific bugs that are worrying (we all miss the
>obvious problems sometimes), it's the descriptions of what people are trying
>to do that shows how little people actually _think_ about the problem they
>have to solve, and hence the solution they are creating.
>
>Cheers,
> Jason S (iGadget)
>
True. This forces the non-developers out of software development (i.e., all
those people who got into developing software because there was opportunity
and it seemed so easy - until the app had to be production ready). But you
really have got to wonder where Microsoft thought those 50-70% (I agree that
this is accurate) were going to go. I was positive there was going to be
a new product attempting to go after that market, but I was wrong about that
since there's no sign of it yet.

Personally, my biggest obstacle is that I love working for my current client,
but I'm supporting 2 large systems that aren't going to convert to .NET without
a lot of pain and time. My client won't see the advantage, so how do I convince
them that they should pay for months of downtime (not to mention distributing
the monstrous .NET framework to their users - "it's how large??!!"). So I'm
using .NET for my own 'hobby' apps and stuck with VB6 for existing real-world
code, although I have been preparing them for the inevitable upgrade down
the road (closer to when Microsoft pulls VB6 for good).

Re: .Net... the saga...

"Dave" <doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3dbab379$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
>
> "Jason Sobell \(iGadget\)" <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >As a genuine comment (and this is _not_ flame bait), I would suggest that
> >while strong VB developers with a little OO experience could probably
pick
> >this up and run with it in relatively short time, it is a thought process
> >modification (or 'paradigm shift' as they sometimes call it) that will
> >almost certainly defeat any weak developers, so that rules out about
50%-70%
> >of the VB6 people out there :/
> >Just read some of the support questions to get an idea of what I mean.
It's
> >not the questions about specific bugs that are worrying (we all miss the
> >obvious problems sometimes), it's the descriptions of what people are
trying
> >to do that shows how little people actually _think_ about the problem
they
> >have to solve, and hence the solution they are creating.
> >
> >Cheers,
> > Jason S (iGadget)
> >
> True. This forces the non-developers out of software development (i.e.,
all
> those people who got into developing software because there was
opportunity
> and it seemed so easy - until the app had to be production ready). But you
> really have got to wonder where Microsoft thought those 50-70% (I agree
that
> this is accurate) were going to go.

My guess is they will make it easier in the next version, both to upgrade
and to get going, by adding more wizards (please can I have the Class Wizard
back you buggers!) and other goodgamalaries...

I'm not disagreeing with (both) your comments, but now they've got the
framework and the language, I think they'll have the time to concentrate
more on the goodies.....but people will still have to get their heads around
OOP..even wizards won't be able to disguise the nature of the beast.

Re: .Net... the saga...

"Dave" <doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:3dbab379$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
>
> "Jason Sobell \(iGadget\)" <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >As a genuine comment (and this is _not_ flame bait), I would suggest that
> >while strong VB developers with a little OO experience could probably
pick
> >this up and run with it in relatively short time, it is a thought process
> >modification (or 'paradigm shift' as they sometimes call it) that will
> >almost certainly defeat any weak developers, so that rules out about
50%-70%
> >of the VB6 people out there :/
> >Just read some of the support questions to get an idea of what I mean.
It's
> >not the questions about specific bugs that are worrying (we all miss the
> >obvious problems sometimes), it's the descriptions of what people are
trying
> >to do that shows how little people actually _think_ about the problem
they
> >have to solve, and hence the solution they are creating.
> >
> >Cheers,
> > Jason S (iGadget)
> >
> True. This forces the non-developers out of software development (i.e.,
all
> those people who got into developing software because there was
opportunity
> and it seemed so easy - until the app had to be production ready). But you
> really have got to wonder where Microsoft thought those 50-70% (I agree
that
> this is accurate) were going to go. I was positive there was going to be
> a new product attempting to go after that market, but I was wrong about
that
> since there's no sign of it yet.

I suppose it's a tricky situation for Microsoft. They have basically
released a replacement for the previous Visual C++ area of their development
community, and are trying to persuade their VB community to adopt it. I do
believe that the idea is sound, but as you say, what on earth are those
other 50-70% going to do?
Perhaps MS will simply keep VB6 going for the foreseeable future until
enough customers want features that are only available in .NET that they
force the whole development community to adopt it.
> Personally, my biggest obstacle is that I love working for my current
client,
> but I'm supporting 2 large systems that aren't going to convert to .NET
without
> a lot of pain and time. My client won't see the advantage, so how do I
convince
> them that they should pay for months of downtime (not to mention
distributing
> the monstrous .NET framework to their users - "it's how large??!!"). So
I'm
> using .NET for my own 'hobby' apps and stuck with VB6 for existing
real-world
> code, although I have been preparing them for the inevitable upgrade down
> the road (closer to when Microsoft pulls VB6 for good).

The thought of 'converting' a large VB6 project to .NET is horrific! I have
tried running the conversion wizard over one of my large current projects,
and there are so many massive code modifications that I have _absolutely no
doubt_ that it will be simpler and quicker to rewrite the system from
scratch. More importantly, I can see that a huge rethink and redesign is
required to move it to .NET because I will not be able to get away with many
of the 'slack' practices I used in the VB6 version (mainly caused by
complete lack of type safeness and the flexibility of variants).
I am certain that if I rewrite it I will have a much more structured
solution, largely because I'll be forced to create it in a more modular
manner that encourages thoughtful design.

Re: .Net... the saga...

"John Butler" <nospamjrbutler@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3dbb2fff$1@tnews.web.devx.com...
> My guess is they will make it easier in the next version, both to upgrade
> and to get going, by adding more wizards (please can I have the Class
Wizard
> back you buggers!) and other goodgamalaries...

Yes, damnit! The perfect IDE to contain a class wizard, and there isn't one!

Re: .Net... the saga...

> and to get going, by adding more wizards (please can I have the Class
Wizard
> back you buggers!)

He, he! here is another reason to use C#... Right click on your project in
class view - you get the Add Class option. Right click on a class in your
project you get to add a property or method. The nicest thing though, and
something that VB.NET MUST get is the ability to implement entire interfaces
with a single click... That's right, you find the class in class view
navigate to the interface, right click and select implement interface...

This is a very nice feature in the C# ide, it really makes implementing
complex interfaces easier.

Re: .Net... the saga...

Jason Sobell (iGadget) wrote:
> However, my overall appraisal of VB.Net and its complexity remains
> unaltered. I still think it is a very tricky thing for conventional VB
> developers to come to terms with,.....<SNIP>

Our experience has been that "good" VB developers have no problem after a
few weeks of familiarization. Bad/weak VB developers have the same problems
as before. Just more of it ;-)
> As a genuine comment (and this is _not_ flame bait), I would suggest
> that while strong VB developers with a little OO experience could
> probably pick this up and run with it in relatively short time, it is
> a thought process modification (or 'paradigm shift' as they sometimes
> call it) that will almost certainly defeat any weak developers, so
> that rules out about 50%-70% of the VB6 people out there :/

I have no idea what percentage of all VB'ers would be considered "weak" but
in our current environment it's likely to be under 20%. We found that VB'ers
with good experience of languages/tools like Delphi, Java, C++, Oberon,
Smalltalk, UML, J[ava]Script tended to make the switch more easily and
quickly.

Re: .Net... the saga...

"Kunle Odutola" <kunle.odutola@REMOVETHISokocha.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:3dbb7b61@tnews.web.devx.com...
> Jason Sobell (iGadget) wrote:
>
> > However, my overall appraisal of VB.Net and its complexity remains
> > unaltered. I still think it is a very tricky thing for conventional VB
> > developers to come to terms with,.....<SNIP>
>
> Our experience has been that "good" VB developers have no problem after a
> few weeks of familiarization. Bad/weak VB developers have the same
problems
> as before. Just more of it ;-)
>
> > As a genuine comment (and this is _not_ flame bait), I would suggest
> > that while strong VB developers with a little OO experience could
> > probably pick this up and run with it in relatively short time, it is
> > a thought process modification (or 'paradigm shift' as they sometimes
> > call it) that will almost certainly defeat any weak developers, so
> > that rules out about 50%-70% of the VB6 people out there :/
>
> I have no idea what percentage of all VB'ers would be considered "weak"
but
> in our current environment it's likely to be under 20%. We found that
VB'ers
> with good experience of languages/tools like Delphi, Java, C++, Oberon,
> Smalltalk, UML, J[ava]Script tended to make the switch more easily and
> quickly.

You find that 80% os VB developers have good experience of Delphi/Java/C++
etc?
Where do you work, Microsoft or Sun?
I work mainly in the financial industry, and I can tell you that there are a
**** of a lot more than 20% weak programmers there

Re: .Net... the saga...

"Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vhenruks2maabv42q6o784e110h9ql2i59@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 00:03:19 +1000, "Jason Sobell \(iGadget\)"
> <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >p.p.s. Do not confuse me with the other 'Jason'; I am the real one
>
> I'm getting used to Jasons! Over here we only call dogs and
> footballers Jason, however, so I have to keep suppressing an
> involuntary woof woof when I read these contributions...<g>

Actually, I'm from 'over here' too, I just happen to be living 'over there'
at the moment

Re: .Net... the saga...

Jason Sobell (iGadget) wrote:
>> I have no idea what percentage of all VB'ers would be considered
>> "weak"
> but
>> in our current environment it's likely to be under 20%. We found
>> that VB'ers with good experience of languages/tools like Delphi,
>> Java, C++, Oberon, Smalltalk, UML, J[ava]Script tended to make the
>> switch more easily and quickly.
>
> You find that 80% os VB developers have good experience of
> Delphi/Java/C++ etc?

They do in our environment. Many VB devs "out there" have also dabbled
significantly with JavaScript/JScript as part of the dotcom/intranet craze.
If they are "good" developers and bothered to learn JavaScript/JScript, they
have already been exposed to the OO welterschaung....
> Where do you work, Microsoft or Sun?

Do they have any VB developers? ;-)
> I work mainly in the financial industry, and I can tell you that
> there are a **** of a lot more than 20% weak programmers there

Re: .Net... the saga...

"Jason Sobell \(iGadget\)" <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The thought of 'converting' a large VB6 project to .NET is horrific! I
have
>tried running the conversion wizard over one of my large current projects,
>and there are so many massive code modifications that I have _absolutely
no
>doubt_ that it will be simpler and quicker to rewrite the system from
>scratch. More importantly, I can see that a huge rethink and redesign is
>required to move it to .NET because I will not be able to get away with
many
>of the 'slack' practices I used in the VB6 version (mainly caused by
>complete lack of type safeness and the flexibility of variants).
>I am certain that if I rewrite it I will have a much more structured
>solution, largely because I'll be forced to create it in a more modular
>manner that encourages thoughtful design.
>
>Cheers,
> Jason
>
The scale of project I usually work on entails about 2000 hours for the 'version
1' (the real coding after prototypes and feedback). No way any client is
paying for a rewrite. However, I think the upgrade can be done in about 1
month for each (optimistically speaking) - even this is a tough sell in this
market however.

Re: .Net... the saga...

Dave,
as to the 'problem' of the large Framework download - MS has stated publicly
that the .NET framework WILL be BUILT-IN to all future releases (and Service
Packs) of ALL of the relevant operating systems, so the need to download
a separate package is only a temporary inconvenience.

Arthur Wood

"Dave" <doknjas@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>"Jason Sobell \(iGadget\)" <iGadget_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>As a genuine comment (and this is _not_ flame bait), I would suggest that
>>while strong VB developers with a little OO experience could probably pick
>>this up and run with it in relatively short time, it is a thought process
>>modification (or 'paradigm shift' as they sometimes call it) that will
>>almost certainly defeat any weak developers, so that rules out about 50%-70%
>>of the VB6 people out there :/
>>Just read some of the support questions to get an idea of what I mean.
It's
>>not the questions about specific bugs that are worrying (we all miss the
>>obvious problems sometimes), it's the descriptions of what people are trying
>>to do that shows how little people actually _think_ about the problem they
>>have to solve, and hence the solution they are creating.
>>
>>Cheers,
>> Jason S (iGadget)
>>
>True. This forces the non-developers out of software development (i.e.,
all
>those people who got into developing software because there was opportunity
>and it seemed so easy - until the app had to be production ready). But you
>really have got to wonder where Microsoft thought those 50-70% (I agree
that
>this is accurate) were going to go. I was positive there was going to be
>a new product attempting to go after that market, but I was wrong about
that
>since there's no sign of it yet.
>
>Personally, my biggest obstacle is that I love working for my current client,
>but I'm supporting 2 large systems that aren't going to convert to .NET
without
>a lot of pain and time. My client won't see the advantage, so how do I convince
>them that they should pay for months of downtime (not to mention distributing
>the monstrous .NET framework to their users - "it's how large??!!"). So
I'm
>using .NET for my own 'hobby' apps and stuck with VB6 for existing real-world
>code, although I have been preparing them for the inevitable upgrade down
>the road (closer to when Microsoft pulls VB6 for good).
>
>
>

Re: .Net... the saga...

"Arthur Wood" <wooda@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>Dave,
> as to the 'problem' of the large Framework download - MS has stated publicly
>that the .NET framework WILL be BUILT-IN to all future releases (and Service
>Packs) of ALL of the relevant operating systems, so the need to download
>a separate package is only a temporary inconvenience.
>
>Arthur Wood
>
Right - now if I can just get my main client to move past Win 2000 ...
In other words, what MS has stated is of no concern to to the growing number
of companies that have decided not to continually upgrade their users to
the latest and greatest O/S (especially when the 'improvements' are trivial).

Re: .Net... the saga...

Arthur,
> Dave,
> as to the 'problem' of the large Framework download - MS has
> stated publicly that the .NET framework WILL be BUILT-IN to all
> future releases (and Service Packs) of ALL of the relevant operating
> systems, so the need to download a separate package is only a
> temporary inconvenience.

Temporary being how long?

I should imagine major clients dont all switch to the new OS as soon
as its available for a number of good reasons.

I may be XP'd at home,but the Office is still NT4 for the box's and
'98 or 2000 for the laptops.